A Summary and Critique of “The Canon of the Old Testament” by Milton C. Fisher
Introduction
The issue of canonicity is crucial to Christian faith and practice because it deals with the precise content constituting the Old Testament. In view of extra-biblical authorities held by modern cults, Fisher maintained that such an inquiry involves historical investigation, rather than a theological one. However, raw historical data is often evaluated through the lens of two opposing approaches.
On one hand, the conservative approach appeals to clear, but limited statements of the Old Testament that relate to this subject. On the other hand, modern critical approach assumes that over time “profane literature” was infused with sacredness by a long process of selection. The author was committed to the former on grounds that it deals with internal and external evidence rather than following naturalistic presuppositions alien to the Scripture itself.
Summary and Critique
To be sure, both Israel and the Church were entrusted with the preservation, transmission and witness to the contents of Scripture. However, Fisher defined canonization as “recognition of the inherent canonical quality and qualification of each portion as it became available”. The implication is that their canonicity was not derived from any ecclesiastical body, rather, the community of faith esteemed their “innate authenticity by virtue of divine inspiration” from the time they were written and publicly read. With that, Fisher put forth three guiding principles to draw inferences to the actual manner of their recognition – namely, the early concept of canonicity, the canonical parameter defined by Scripture itself and Christ Himself as the final arbiter.
Contrary to modern critical views, there was a “psychology of canonicity” that the authoritative writings were inviolable dating as early as second millennium B. C. This was attested in many biblical passages which specifically command the careful preservation and public recital of God’s Word . Such pervading sense of the fear of God safeguarded sacred writings from willful tampering, as reflected by the attitudes of other ancient peoples also. The resemblance of OT covenant with the legally binding suzerainty treaty indicated such documents were considered authoritative and inviolable.
Secondly, we need to account for the self-attestation of Scripture about its divine uniqueness and historical record of canonization . The Pentateuch as a covenant and legislative document was the necessary basis of Hebrew theocratic state. The prophets, as legal prosecutors against a rebellious Israel, acknowledged each other’s message as bearing the authority of “Thus saith the Lord” . Fisher claims that this “formal unity” can be found elsewhere in the Psalms as a vassal’s “ratification response” and Wisdom literatures as “the way of the covenant.” (Deut 4:6-8) However, in my opinion, the motif of covenant is helpful as an exegetical tool but unconvincing if extended as conscious criteria for canonization when extended to pre-covenant Job or Song of Songs. In the first century A.D., Josephus listed 22 books of Hebrew canon in Contra Apionem which correspond to the modern 39 books . Although by fifth century A.D. the Talmud confirmed that a three-part arrangement came to be recognized , it does not support the claims of critics that the canon of a third section was still open until the Council of Jamnia c. 90 A.D . Philo, writing at the time of Christ, referred to the threefold distinction and acknowledged all 39 books as Josephus in De Vita Comtemplativa.
Lastly, Christ’s affirmation and quotation of the OT certify its canonicity . Jesus showed familiarity with the Hebrew format by appealing to a publicly recognized body of Scriptures as “the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms” and “Abel to Zechariah” allusion. Sometimes, an argument is based on a single word (Matt 22:42-45) with phrases like “it is written” or “that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord” confirm its authoritative nature. The author mentioned briefly the early church fathers’ uncertain recognition of the OT canon, without going in detail much of the debates which we inherited about the Apocrypha.
Conclusion
In view of the NT confirmation of the scope and authority of OT, I am inclined to agree with George Adam Smith “that the church of Christ possesses higher warrant for the Canon of the Old Testament than she does for the New.” Although the evidence for the Jewish canon is sufficient, it seems unwise to dismiss the disputes among the early church fathers as “matters of historical curiosity”. Perhaps, the esteemed albeit non-canonical place of the Apocrypha in the Jewish milieu should caution the suggestion that its inclusion in the Septuagint is just Hellenist broadening.
However, such debates among the early church fathers should not shake our confidence in the Hebrew canon as we understand that the canonicity of Scripture was not derived from any ecclesiastical authorities such as the Council of Carthage or Hippo.
Introduction
The issue of canonicity is crucial to Christian faith and practice because it deals with the precise content constituting the Old Testament. In view of extra-biblical authorities held by modern cults, Fisher maintained that such an inquiry involves historical investigation, rather than a theological one. However, raw historical data is often evaluated through the lens of two opposing approaches.
On one hand, the conservative approach appeals to clear, but limited statements of the Old Testament that relate to this subject. On the other hand, modern critical approach assumes that over time “profane literature” was infused with sacredness by a long process of selection. The author was committed to the former on grounds that it deals with internal and external evidence rather than following naturalistic presuppositions alien to the Scripture itself. Summary and Critique
To be sure, both Israel and the Church were entrusted with the preservation, transmission and witness to the contents of Scripture. However, Fisher defined canonization as “recognition of the inherent canonical quality and qualification of each portion as it became available”. The implication is that their canonicity was not derived from any ecclesiastical body, rather, the community of faith esteemed their “innate authenticity by virtue of divine inspiration” from the time they were written and publicly read. With that, Fisher put forth three guiding principles to draw inferences to the actual manner of their recognition – namely, the early concept of canonicity, the canonical parameter defined by Scripture itself and Christ Himself as the final arbiter.
Contrary to modern critical views, there was a “psychology of canonicity” that the authoritative writings were inviolable dating as early as second millennium B. C. This was attested in many biblical passages which specifically command the careful preservation and public recital of God’s Word . Such pervading sense of the fear of God safeguarded sacred writings from willful tampering, as reflected by the attitudes of other ancient peoples also. The resemblance of OT covenant with the legally binding suzerainty treaty indicated such documents were considered authoritative and inviolable.
Secondly, we need to account for the self-attestation of Scripture about its divine uniqueness and historical record of canonization . The Pentateuch as a covenant and legislative document was the necessary basis of Hebrew theocratic state. The prophets, as legal prosecutors against a rebellious Israel, acknowledged each other’s message as bearing the authority of “Thus saith the Lord” . Fisher claims that this “formal unity” can be found elsewhere in the Psalms as a vassal’s “ratification response” and Wisdom literatures as “the way of the covenant.” (Deut 4:6-8) However, in my opinion, the motif of covenant is helpful as an exegetical tool but unconvincing if extended as conscious criteria for canonization when extended to pre-covenant Job or Song of Songs. In the first century A.D., Josephus listed 22 books of Hebrew canon in Contra Apionem which correspond to the modern 39 books . Although by fifth century A.D. the Talmud confirmed that a three-part arrangement came to be recognized , it does not support the claims of critics that the canon of a third section was still open until the Council of Jamnia c. 90 A.D . Philo, writing at the time of Christ, referred to the threefold distinction and acknowledged all 39 books as Josephus in De Vita Comtemplativa. Lastly, Christ’s affirmation and quotation of the OT certify its canonicity . Jesus showed familiarity with the Hebrew format by appealing to a publicly recognized body of Scriptures as “the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms” and “Abel to Zechariah” allusion. Sometimes, an argument is based on a single word (Matt 22:42-45) with phrases like “it is written” or “that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord” confirm its authoritative nature. The author mentioned briefly the early church fathers’ uncertain recognition of the OT canon, without going in detail much of the debates which we inherited about the Apocrypha.
Conclusion
In view of the NT confirmation of the scope and authority of OT, I am inclined to agree with George Adam Smith “that the church of Christ possesses higher warrant for the Canon of the Old Testament than she does for the New.” Although the evidence for the Jewish canon is sufficient, it seems unwise to dismiss the disputes among the early church fathers as “matters of historical curiosity”. Perhaps, the esteemed albeit non-canonical place of the Apocrypha in the Jewish milieu should caution the suggestion that its inclusion in the Septuagint is just Hellenist broadening.
However, such debates among the early church fathers should not shake our confidence in the Hebrew canon as we understand that the canonicity of Scripture was not derived from any ecclesiastical authorities such as the Council of Carthage or Hippo.
Comments